Leif: I agree your understanding. To follow UEFI spec, I think we should update CHAR8 as the unsigned type in its definition for all ARCH ProcessorBind.h in MdePkg. If so, we don't need to add compiler option in tools_def.template.
Thanks Liming From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Leif Lindholm Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:36 PM To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: edk2-devel (edk2-devel@lists.01.org) Subject: Re: [edk2] signedness of CHAR8 On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 01:41:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 03/17/16 13:34, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:16:31PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote: > >> So, as further fallout from my -Weverything experiments, I've come > >> across this... > >> > >> Ia32 and X64 ProcessorBind.h (BaseTools and MdePkg) both define CHAR8 as > >> 'char'. > >> ARM and AArch64 both do the same. > >> > >> However, default 'char' signedness is unsigned in the ARM > >> architectures, and signed in the others. > >> > >> Meanwhile, the UEFI specification describes CHAR8 as > >> --- > >> 1-byte character. Unless otherwise specified, all 1-byte or ASCII > >> characters and > >> strings are stored in 8-bit ASCII encoding format, using the > >> ISO-Latin-1 character > >> set. > >> --- > >> > >> Now, ISO-Latin-1 holds values all the way up to 255, which clearly > >> does not fit into a signed 8-bit char. > >> > >> Would I be correct in my interpretation that Ia32/X64 should be > >> defining CHAR8 as 'unsigned char', or am I losing my mind? > > > > I'll reply to myself. > > > > BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template sets -funsigned-chars for X64/Ia32 - > > Where? I can only see that for XCODE5. I stand corrected. / Leif _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
